Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (239968)	7/4/2005 12:32:18 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572124

As a matter of fact, yes. The U.S. had an active campaign to assassinate Fidel Castro for decades. Well that doesn't seem to have worked very well! :-) The new leader of Iraq that asks for the US bases to be removed should be OK given the US assassination track record.... The U.S. is complicit in the assassination of Chile's Salvadore Allende. Complicit? The U.S. is also guilty via Operation Gladio for several political assassinations in Italy. It is the U.S. CIA that is implicated in the assassination terror that reigned in Greece after WW II. The U.S. is implicated in providing the names of 5,000 undesirable leftists, trade unionists and socialists in Iraq who were systematically assassinated by Saddam Hussein when the Ba'ath Party assassinated President Kassim in 1963. The U.S. CIA is implicated in an even larger purging of leftist opponents of the Suharto regime as it rose to power with full U.S. complicity in 1965 in Indonesia. The final death toll there probably exceeds 500,000, with a large number of community and trade union organizers targetted by the CIA and assassinated by the right wing thugs working for Suharto. Bollocks. Do you seriously think the US had this incredible intelligence network in all of these 3rd world countries? The US was more able to finder "undesirables" than the ruling party of those countries? Give me a break! We barely had a clue what was going on in Iraq, we're pretty clueless about events in Iran, but forty years ago we knew everything about Indonesian local politics, and the CIA took out 500,000 of their citizens? Yeah, you sound like a knowledgeable source - for Ted! What the hell are you (other than idiotically naive) to think that George Bush (a greedy and sleazy oilman) will ever allow any real opposition to his will in Iraq? You are naive beyond compare. Once they elect their own leader in December, opposition to that leader's decisions becomes incredibly difficult. That's OBVIOUS. You don't seem to understand that because you confuse influence (which the US may have had to varying degrees in each of the "assassination" event discussed above) with control. They aren't the same, at all. Of course the new leader of Iraq will be influence by many things including his population, his neighbors, the US, even France, but at the end of the day he weighs up all his options and influences and then does whatever he thinks best for his people - if that includes asking the US to remove all of its military presence from Iraq, it will happen. Anyway, the bigger question is not will the Iraqis ask for US bases to be removed (they probably won't); rather, the important thing for a return to "localized" Iraqi control of the police. When coalition troops cease partolling the country and Iraqis become fully in charge of security the importance of "troop presence" and feeling of "occupation" will decline significantly. Even in Saudi Arabia it was mainly the fanatical Al Qaeda killers that objected to US bases, not the normal local population. The normal local Saudi population NEVER saw the troops, as the bases were out in the desert near the Iraq border. Once the coalition troops cease policing Iraq, the vast majority of Iraqis will have ZERO contact with the coalition troops, and the objection to their presence (if it even exists today) will decline tremendously.